Advertisements

On 26 Jun 2005 21:13:38 -0700, wrote:
>Harvey Scobie wrote:
>> Does anyone have any idea the cost of each body armor unit that is issued to
>> the troops in Iraq.
>
>It's too expensive, the troops don't need it. Rumsfeld said it so stop
>your bitching and get out on patrol.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
--
COFFEE.EXE missing. Insert CUP and press ENTER to retry.

|Harvey Scobie wrote:
|> Does anyone have any idea the cost of each body armor unit that is issued to
|> the troops in Iraq.
|
|It's too expensive, the troops don't need it. Rumsfeld said it so stop
|your bitching and get out on patrol.

Did they have Level IV (IBA, police only wear Level II or IIIA, a flack vest is
only Level I) body armor during Vietnam? NO During WW2 or WW1?

NO. In fact the last time body armor was widely worn was in the Middle Ages.

---
"If ye love wealth better than liberty ... servitude better than ... freedom,
go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms ... May your
chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 01:38:34 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Omega
<> in <>
wrote:
>On 26 Jun 2005 21:13:38 -0700, wrote:
>
>|Harvey Scobie wrote:
>|> Does anyone have any idea the cost of each body armor unit that is issued to
>|> the troops in Iraq.
>|
>|It's too expensive, the troops don't need it. Rumsfeld said it so stop
>|your bitching and get out on patrol.
>
>Did they have Level IV (IBA, police only wear Level II or IIIA, a flack vest is
>only Level I) body armor during Vietnam? NO During WW2 or WW1?

Omega wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2005 21:13:38 -0700, wrote:
>
> |Harvey Scobie wrote:
> |> Does anyone have any idea the cost of each body armor unit that is issued to
> |> the troops in Iraq.
> |
> |It's too expensive, the troops don't need it. Rumsfeld said it so stop
> |your bitching and get out on patrol.
>
> Did they have Level IV (IBA, police only wear Level II or IIIA, a flack vest is
> only Level I) body armor during Vietnam? NO During WW2 or WW1?
>
> NO. In fact the last time body armor was widely worn was in the Middle Ages.
>

Are you trying to say there were no Flack Vests or any other kind of
Body Armor in VietNam?

|Omega wrote:
|> On 26 Jun 2005 21:13:38 -0700, wrote:
|>
|> |Harvey Scobie wrote:
|> |> Does anyone have any idea the cost of each body armor unit that is issued to
|> |> the troops in Iraq.
|> |
|> |It's too expensive, the troops don't need it. Rumsfeld said it so stop
|> |your bitching and get out on patrol.
|>
|> Did they have Level IV (IBA, police only wear Level II or IIIA, a flack vest is
|> only Level I) body armor during Vietnam? NO During WW2 or WW1?
|>
|> NO. In fact the last time body armor was widely worn was in the Middle Ages.
|>
|
|Are you trying to say there were no Flack Vests or any other kind of
|Body Armor in VietNam?
|
|Mike

No, I am saying that they had only Level I body armor which was about as bad as
having nothing. A Flak vest is only Level I which will not stop even a pistol
round. Police currently wear Level II or IIIa which will stop most pistol
rounds. the IBA armor that the military is currently using is Level IV which
will stop a .30 cal. rifle round.

The point is that expectations have been raised far more than any war in
history.

---
"If ye love wealth better than liberty ... servitude better than ... freedom,
go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms ... May your
chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:55:13 GMT, Omega <> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:48 GMT, Mike P <> wrote:
>
>|Omega wrote:
>|> On 26 Jun 2005 21:13:38 -0700, wrote:
>|>
>|> |Harvey Scobie wrote:
>|> |> Does anyone have any idea the cost of each body armor unit that is issued to
>|> |> the troops in Iraq.
>|> |
>|> |It's too expensive, the troops don't need it. Rumsfeld said it so stop
>|> |your bitching and get out on patrol.
>|>
>|> Did they have Level IV (IBA, police only wear Level II or IIIA, a flack vest is
>|> only Level I) body armor during Vietnam? NO During WW2 or WW1?
>|>
>|> NO. In fact the last time body armor was widely worn was in the Middle Ages.
>|>
>|
>|Are you trying to say there were no Flack Vests or any other kind of
>|Body Armor in VietNam?
>|
>|Mike
>
>No, I am saying that they had only Level I body armor which was about as bad as
>having nothing. A Flak vest is only Level I which will not stop even a pistol
>round. Police currently wear Level II or IIIa which will stop most pistol
>rounds. the IBA armor that the military is currently using is Level IV which
>will stop a .30 cal. rifle round.
>
>The point is that expectations have been raised far more than any war in
>history.
>
>

Actually, the literature withthe SAPI plate says it will stop *one*
30mm AP round. I'd imagine that anything behind the plate would be
jelly, notwithstanding that systems that fire 30mm rounds don't tend
to fire only one at a time.

|On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:55:13 GMT, Omega <> wrote:
|
|>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:48 GMT, Mike P <> wrote:
|>
|>|Omega wrote:
|>|> On 26 Jun 2005 21:13:38 -0700, wrote:
|>|>
|>|> |Harvey Scobie wrote:
|>|> |> Does anyone have any idea the cost of each body armor unit that is issued to
|>|> |> the troops in Iraq.
|>|> |
|>|> |It's too expensive, the troops don't need it. Rumsfeld said it so stop
|>|> |your bitching and get out on patrol.
|>|>
|>|> Did they have Level IV (IBA, police only wear Level II or IIIA, a flack vest is
|>|> only Level I) body armor during Vietnam? NO During WW2 or WW1?
|>|>
|>|> NO. In fact the last time body armor was widely worn was in the Middle Ages.
|>|>
|>|
|>|Are you trying to say there were no Flack Vests or any other kind of
|>|Body Armor in VietNam?
|>|
|>|Mike
|>
|>No, I am saying that they had only Level I body armor which was about as bad as
|>having nothing. A Flak vest is only Level I which will not stop even a pistol
|>round. Police currently wear Level II or IIIa which will stop most pistol
|>rounds. the IBA armor that the military is currently using is Level IV which
|>will stop a .30 cal. rifle round.
|>
|>The point is that expectations have been raised far more than any war in
|>history.
|>
|>
|
|Actually, the literature withthe SAPI plate says it will stop *one*
|30mm AP round. I'd imagine that anything behind the plate would be
|jelly, notwithstanding that systems that fire 30mm rounds don't tend
|to fire only one at a time.

Unless you are trying to be a candidate for the Darwin Award, I doubt that there
are few volunteers to be a test subject for a 30mm round.

---
"If ye love wealth better than liberty ... servitude better than ... freedom,
go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms ... May your
chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

In article <>, Omega
<> wrote:
> |Mike
>
> No, I am saying that they had only Level I body armor which was about as bad
> as
> having nothing. A Flak vest is only Level I which will not stop even a pistol
> round. Police currently wear Level II or IIIa which will stop most pistol
> rounds. the IBA armor that the military is currently using is Level IV which
> will stop a .30 cal. rifle round.
>

Which of these do you mean?

".30 cal. rifle round" covers a wide range, from wimpy .30 Cal Carbine
WWII relics to 7.62 x 39 AK-47 to 7.62 x 54 NATO (essentially the same
as .308 Winchester, what I fire in my Remington 700 VS-SS sniper
rifle). And even more powerful hunting rifles were widely available in
Iraq before the American invasion, as hunting was a popular sport.

I have a vest with ceramic plates, but it ain't rated to stop a .308
Winchester, least of all one of the black-tipped rounds.

Were I a sniper in Occupied Iraq, I wouldn't bother with the advice
here to go for "thigh" shots. I'd go for center of mass shots and
assume the vest won't do much to stop the trauma.

(The kill rate of the Baghdad Sniper suggests he isn't much deterred by
body armor, meant mostly to deal with pistol rounds and shrapnel.)

And of course some of the freedom fighters have access to .50 BMG
rifles of various makes.

Baghdad is the newest training ground for snipers.

Maybe they'll even recruit some of those old Bedouin guys who were
certainly not "spray and pray" shooters. They know how to make single
rounds count.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:55:13 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Omega
<> in <>
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:48 GMT, Mike P <> wrote:
>
>|Omega wrote:
>|> On 26 Jun 2005 21:13:38 -0700, wrote:
>|>
>|> |Harvey Scobie wrote:
>|> |> Does anyone have any idea the cost of each body armor unit that is issued to
>|> |> the troops in Iraq.
>|> |
>|> |It's too expensive, the troops don't need it. Rumsfeld said it so stop
>|> |your bitching and get out on patrol.
>|>
>|> Did they have Level IV (IBA, police only wear Level II or IIIA, a flack vest is
>|> only Level I) body armor during Vietnam? NO During WW2 or WW1?
>|>
>|> NO. In fact the last time body armor was widely worn was in the Middle Ages.
>|>
>|
>|Are you trying to say there were no Flack Vests or any other kind of
>|Body Armor in VietNam?
>|
>|Mike
>
>No, I am saying that they had only Level I body armor which was about as bad as
>having nothing. A Flak vest is only Level I which will not stop even a pistol
>round. Police currently wear Level II or IIIa which will stop most pistol
>rounds. the IBA armor that the military is currently using is Level IV which
>will stop a .30 cal. rifle round.
>
>The point is that expectations have been raised far more than any war in
>history.

Yeah, technology marches on. Do you want to claim that we did not
equip our soldiers with the best available technology in WWI, WWII,
Korea, or Vietnam? If so, it was wrong then. You don't argue that
something is right because we made the same error in the past.

--
Matt Silberstein

I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.

Omega wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:48 GMT, Mike P <> wrote:
>
> |Omega wrote:
> |> On 26 Jun 2005 21:13:38 -0700, wrote:
> |>
> |> |Harvey Scobie wrote:
> |> |> Does anyone have any idea the cost of each body armor unit that is issued to
> |> |> the troops in Iraq.
> |> |
> |> |It's too expensive, the troops don't need it. Rumsfeld said it so stop
> |> |your bitching and get out on patrol.
> |>
> |> Did they have Level IV (IBA, police only wear Level II or IIIA, a flack vest is
> |> only Level I) body armor during Vietnam? NO During WW2 or WW1?
> |>
> |> NO. In fact the last time body armor was widely worn was in the Middle Ages.
> |>
> |
> |Are you trying to say there were no Flack Vests or any other kind of
> |Body Armor in VietNam?
> |
> |Mike
>
> No, I am saying that they had only Level I body armor which was about as bad as
> having nothing. A Flak vest is only Level I which will not stop even a pistol
> round. Police currently wear Level II or IIIa which will stop most pistol
> rounds. the IBA armor that the military is currently using is Level IV which
> will stop a .30 cal. rifle round.
>
> The point is that expectations have been raised far more than any war in
> history.

The Flack Vests sure stopped 7.62 from a AK-47. I'm living proof. I've
also seen them stop a 30, but it's according to how far away it's fired
from. I knew some that had jock strap protectors when they flew, and
some that used full body armor. All in VietNam. True most Infantry just
carried the Flack Vest, and Steel Pot. But that was because you had to
hump a lot of clicks, and the rest of the armor was to bulky, and weigh
was a factor back then.
You will find that the type of body armor advances with the types of
weapons used in each war, and the training of the Soldier in their use.

|On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:55:13 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Omega
|<> in <>
|wrote:
|
|>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:49:48 GMT, Mike P <> wrote:
|>
|>|Omega wrote:
|>|> On 26 Jun 2005 21:13:38 -0700, wrote:
|>|>
|>|> |Harvey Scobie wrote:
|>|> |> Does anyone have any idea the cost of each body armor unit that is issued to
|>|> |> the troops in Iraq.
|>|> |
|>|> |It's too expensive, the troops don't need it. Rumsfeld said it so stop
|>|> |your bitching and get out on patrol.
|>|>
|>|> Did they have Level IV (IBA, police only wear Level II or IIIA, a flack vest is
|>|> only Level I) body armor during Vietnam? NO During WW2 or WW1?
|>|>
|>|> NO. In fact the last time body armor was widely worn was in the Middle Ages.
|>|>
|>|
|>|Are you trying to say there were no Flack Vests or any other kind of
|>|Body Armor in VietNam?
|>|
|>|Mike
|>
|>No, I am saying that they had only Level I body armor which was about as bad as
|>having nothing. A Flak vest is only Level I which will not stop even a pistol
|>round. Police currently wear Level II or IIIa which will stop most pistol
|>rounds. the IBA armor that the military is currently using is Level IV which
|>will stop a .30 cal. rifle round.
|>
|>The point is that expectations have been raised far more than any war in
|>history.
|
|Yeah, technology marches on. Do you want to claim that we did not
|equip our soldiers with the best available technology in WWI, WWII,
|Korea, or Vietnam? If so, it was wrong then. You don't argue that
|something is right because we made the same error in the past.

Actually we generally were behind the times. The US always is. We go to war
with the Army, and equipment, that we have. We do not wait until we have the
army, or equipment, that we want.

Vietnam had all sorts of problems. What we now see as Vietnam era equipment did
not even come into the supply lines until 1968 or so. Pre '68 was more likely
to see Korean war equipment.

---
"If ye love wealth better than liberty ... servitude better than ... freedom,
go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms ... May your
chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

(snipage occurs)
> Which of these do you mean?
>
> ".30 cal. rifle round" covers a wide range, from wimpy .30 Cal Carbine
> WWII relics to 7.62 x 39 AK-47 to 7.62 x 54 NATO (essentially the same
> as .308 Winchester, what I fire in my Remington 700 VS-SS sniper
> rifle). And even more powerful hunting rifles were widely available in
> Iraq before the American invasion, as hunting was a popular sport.

please cite when 7.62 x 54 mm was NATO type certified. also, please
explain how it "essentially the same as .308 Winchester)

> I have a vest with ceramic plates, but it ain't rated to stop a .308
> Winchester, least of all one of the black-tipped rounds.

thanks for the aiming tip...... %-)
> Were I a sniper in Occupied Iraq, I wouldn't bother with the advice
> here to go for "thigh" shots. I'd go for center of mass shots and
> assume the vest won't do much to stop the trauma.

we all know what happens when you "assume"..... besides, if you were
a "sniper" in "Occupied Iraq", your life expectancy would be measured
in days, at best. RL is not usually too forgiving of wannabes. hell,
your heroes might cut your head off just for kicks, saving the GI's
the trouble of waxing your dumb ass.
> (The kill rate of the Baghdad Sniper suggests he isn't much deterred by
> body armor, meant mostly to deal with pistol rounds and shrapnel.)
>
> And of course some of the freedom fighters have access to .50 BMG
> rifles of various makes.

cite, please.
> Baghdad is the newest training ground for snipers.

their attrition rate will be high enough to eliminate the need for
a graduation ceremony for any class.
> Maybe they'll even recruit some of those old Bedouin guys who were
> certainly not "spray and pray" shooters. They know how to make single
> rounds count.

and their motivation for abandoning their traditional way of life
would be what, exactly?

you really should have someone who has knowledge of whatever
subject you're posting on review your posts prior to transmission.

redc1c4,
(it'd keep you from looking like a moron on Google forever. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:26:06 -0700, Tim May
<> wrote:
>In article <>, Omega
><> wrote:
>> |Mike
>>
>> No, I am saying that they had only Level I body armor which was about as bad
>> as
>> having nothing. A Flak vest is only Level I which will not stop even a pistol
>> round. Police currently wear Level II or IIIa which will stop most pistol
>> rounds. the IBA armor that the military is currently using is Level IV which
>> will stop a .30 cal. rifle round.
>>
>
>Which of these do you mean?
>
>".30 cal. rifle round" covers a wide range, from wimpy .30 Cal Carbine
>WWII relics to 7.62 x 39 AK-47 to 7.62 x 54 NATO (essentially the same
>as .308 Winchester, what I fire in my Remington 700 VS-SS sniper
>rifle). And even more powerful hunting rifles were widely available in
>Iraq before the American invasion, as hunting was a popular sport.
>
>I have a vest with ceramic plates, but it ain't rated to stop a .308
>Winchester, least of all one of the black-tipped rounds.
>
>Were I a sniper in Occupied Iraq, I wouldn't bother with the advice
>here to go for "thigh" shots. I'd go for center of mass shots and
>assume the vest won't do much to stop the trauma.
>
>(The kill rate of the Baghdad Sniper suggests he isn't much deterred by
>body armor, meant mostly to deal with pistol rounds and shrapnel.)
>
>And of course some of the freedom fighters have access to .50 BMG
>rifles of various makes.
>
>Baghdad is the newest training ground for snipers.
>
>Maybe they'll even recruit some of those old Bedouin guys who were
>certainly not "spray and pray" shooters. They know how to make single
>rounds count.
>
>
>--Tim May

IBA is not "meant mostly to deal with pistol rounds and shrapnel."
The OTV part of the IBA does that on it's own. Add the SAPI plates
and it easily defeats 5.56 and 7.62 rifle fire.
--
COFFEE.EXE missing. Insert CUP and press ENTER to retry.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!